3DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the amendments to the claims filed on 05 August 2026. Claims 22 – 34 are pending and currently being examined.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 22 – 34 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In Re Claim 22, the phrase “a plurality of valve pairs installed in the valve bore, each valve pair” in Line 9 would be clearer if replaced with the phrase --a plurality of valve pairs, one of the plurality of valve pairs is installed in the valve bore, said one of the plurality of valve pairs--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 22, 24 – 27, 31 – 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looper (PG Pub US 20100300683 A1) in view of Davis (US Patent 2,828,693 A) as evidenced by Richardson (US Patent 2,760,720 A).
PNG
media_image1.png
678
828
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In Re Claim 22, Looper discloses an apparatus (Figure 2A), comprising: a first fluid end body (see annotated figure above) configured to be attached to a second fluid end body (see annotated figure above, this section typically contains a stuffing box for the cylinder in which the piston reciprocates), the first fluid end body comprising: a plurality of bore pairs (298 to 200 is one bore of a bore pair, the other bore of the bore pair is where piston 206 is below 208; there are three such bore pairs – in respective three chambers labeled 130 in Figure 2B), each bore pair comprising: a valve bore (from 298 to 200) having a wall formed therein; and a plunger bore (where piston 206 is below 208);in which the valve bore and plunger bore intersect at a chamber (208); a plurality of valve pairs (204, 202 is one valve pair, there is one such pair in each of the three chambers 130 in Figure 2B), one of the plurality of valve pairs (204, 202) is installed in the valve bore (from 298 to 200 in Figure 2A), said one of the plurality of valve pairs (204, 202) comprising: a discharge valve (204); and an intake valve (202), the intake valve (202) comprising: an intake valve body (see annotated figure above); and an intake valve seat (see annotated figure above) in which the intake valve seat engages the wall (see annotated figure above) of the valve bore (from 298 to 200); (paragraph [0023]; Figures 2A, 2B).
Looper does not explicitly disclose that the first and second fluid end bodies are connected via stay rods in through bores.
However, Davis discloses an apparatus (Figures 1, 2), comprising: a plurality of stay rods (63); and a first fluid end body (valve block 25) configured to be attached to a second fluid end body (cylinder block 39) via the plurality of stay rods (63, described as extending through the entire body 1 which includes valve block 25 and cylinder block 39), and a plurality of through bores (best seen in Figures 3 – 5, these bores have the stay rods 63; each fluid end body in Figures 1 and 2, including the valve block 25 and the cylinder block 39 has corresponding through bores for respective stay rods 63) formed therein; in which each of the plurality of through bores traverses the entire first fluid end body (25); and in which each of the plurality of through bores (in which 63 are) is configured to receive one of the plurality of stay rods (63) in a one-to-one relationship; (Column 2, Lines 65 – 66; Column 3, Lines 60 – 62; Figures 1, 2).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to connect the first fluid end body of Looper to the second fluid end body via stay rods in respective through bores in the first and second fluid end bodies as taught by Davis because it is known to attach a valve block to a cylinder block via screw-like connections as evidenced by Richardson in Column 1, Lines 67 – 69, therefore the results of the modification are predictable (MPEP 2141, Section III, Rationale B – it is only a matter of substituting the broadly disclosed connection between the valve block and cylinder block of Looper with the specific stay rods connection between the valve block and cylinder block as taught by Davis with the expectation of predictable results).
In Re Claim 24, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Figures 3 – 5 of Davis disclose a square shape for the contacting fluid end bodies/surfaces, a square is a rectangle with equal sides.
In Re Claim 25, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Davis discloses that the second fluid end body (39) comprises: a plurality of fastener bores (for stay rods 63) formed about a periphery (see Figures 3 – 5, 63 is located about a periphery) of the second fluid end body (39); in which each of the plurality of fastener bores is configured to receive one of the plurality of stay rods (63) in a one-to-one relationship.
In Re Claim 26, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 25, and Davis discloses that each of the plurality of fastener bores (for 63 in 39) is alignable with a corresponding one of the plurality of through bores (for 63 in 25) on a one-to-one basis.
In Re Claim 27, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Looper discloses that the thickness of the second fluid end body (shaded region of 105) is less than the thickness of the first fluid end body (unshaded region of 105) (thickness being measured in the direction of the piston’s central axis).
In Re Claim 31, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Figures 3 – 5 of Davis discloses that the first fluid end body (25) and the second fluid end body (39) are joined in the shape of a square prism (a square is a rectangle with equal sides). Figures 1 and 2 of Davis show how they are stacked to form a prism. Note that the Forrest reference in the previous office action also discloses this limitation.
In Re Claim 32, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Looper’s first fluid end body (unshaded portion of 105) is clearly flangeless.
In Re Claim 33, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, Figures 1 – 5 of Davis disclose that the first fluid end body (25) and the second fluid end body (39) have the same height and width, and Looper discloses that the thickness of the second fluid end body (shaded region of 105) is less than the thickness of the first fluid end body (unshaded region of 105) (thickness being measured in the direction of the piston’s central axis).
In Re Claim 34, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, the discharge valve configuration of Looper is the same as the suction valve of Looper discussed in Claim 22, therefore Looper also discloses that the discharge valve (204) comprises: a discharge valve body; and a discharge valve seat; in which the discharge valve seat engages the wall of the valve bore.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looper (PG Pub US 20100300683 A1) in view of Davis (US Patent 2,828,693 A) as evidenced by Richardson (US Patent 2,760,720 A) and further in view of Moe (US Patent 9,371,919 B2).
In Re Claim 23, Looper, Davis and Richardson disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, but they do not explicitly disclose that the surfaces are in flush engagement.
However, Figure 1 of Moe discloses a first fluid end body (8) that is in flush engagement with a second fluid end body (5), the first fluid end body (8) further comprises a front surface (interface between 5 and 8) and a rear surface (end surface to the right of Figure 1); and in which the front surface is in flush engagement with the second fluid end body (5) as shown in Figure 1; In the modified apparatus the through bores as taught by Davis would extend through both the front surface and the rear surface of the first fluid end body Moe.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to form the front and rear surfaces of the first and second fluid end bodies of Looper / Davis / Richardson such that they are in flush engagement as taught by Moe for the purpose of improving dimensional accuracy/tolerances.
Claim(s) 28 – 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Looper (PG Pub US 20100300683 A1) in view of Davis (US Patent 2,828,693 A) as evidenced by Richardson (US Patent 2,760,720 A) and further in view of Redman (US Patent 3,427,988 A).
In Re Claim 28, Looper, Davis and Richardson disclose all the limitations of Claim 22, and Looper further discloses a stuffing box (see annotated figure above), but it does not disclose a packing assembly in the stuffing box.
However, Redman discloses a stuffing box (14); and a packing assembly (15) situated in the stuffing box (14); in which the packing assembly (15) is configured to surround and engage at least a portion of a reciprocating plunger (12) (Column 1, Lines 58 – 62; Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed the invention to incorporate the packing assembly as taught by Redman into the stuffing box of Looper / Davis / Richardson such that surrounds and engages at least a portion of a reciprocating plunger as taught by Redman for the purpose of preventing fluid leakage around the plunger.
In Re Claim 29, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 28, and Looper discloses that the stuffing box (see annotated figure above) is situated partially within the first fluid end body (unshaded area of 105) and partially within the second fluid end body (shaded region area of 105), note that this limitation is also disclosed by the Hext reference cited in the previous office action.
In Re Claim 30, the combined references above disclose all the limitations of Claim 28, and Redman discloses that the packing assembly (15 - at least the rings that the label points to) is situated within a portion of the stuffing box (14) which is spaced from the second fluid end body (13) and spaced from the first fluid end body (10).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DNYANESH G KASTURE whose telephone number is (571)270-3928. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu, 7:30 AM to 6:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Essama Omgba can be reached at 469-295-9278. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D.G.K/Examiner, Art Unit 3746
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights